9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (3) TMI 1608X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ods etc. They have a trading division at Puducherry which deals with certain types of compressors not manufactured by their Puducherry manufacturing unit and the Chennai Trading Division handles all the service related activities. The appellant cleared certain imported inputs namely air end, oil cooler, element separator etc. on which CENVAT credit was availed by them to M/s. Sun Beam Generators, Puducherry and M/s. Fusion Metal Tech India Pvt. Ltd. on sale basis. They also cleared certain imported components to their trading division at Chennai for service purposes. M/s. Sun Beam Generator availed credit of duty paid on the inputs received from the appellants and used the same for manufacture of 'Diesel Driven Compressor Kit' and c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... such along with another demand of Rs. 5,24,778/- being the excess input credit availed for the second time on the same invoices. The impugned order also imposed penalty. Aggrieved, the appellant is now before the Tribunal. 3. On behalf of the appellant, ld. counsel Shri Ju Shankar Raman submitted that on being pointed out, the appellant had immediately paid the duty demand. The non-reversal of proportionate CENVAT credit was only an error caused due to the software SAP used by the appellant. The double credit availed on certain invoices was only an inadvertent mistake. He submitted that in the reply to the show cause notice, the appellant had explained that the error occasioned due to the defect in the software during the relevant period. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... returns furnished along with the appeal records, we are able to see that the appellant has disclosed the entire details of inputs cleared as such. The corresponding reversal of duty shows a depressed amount, as the 4% SAD has not been reversed. This has been explained by them in their reply to show cause notice as well as in the appeal grounds. It is also not disputed that the appellants have discharged the duty liability immediately on being pointed out by the officers. As the ER-I returns clearly show the details of inputs cleared as such, we are of the considered opinion that the appellant cannot be saddled with suppression of facts with intent to evade payment of duty. The allegation of double credit availed is explained by the appellan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
